Allow Cookies!
By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies
The Allahabad High Court had granted death penalty to Gambhir Singh who had been convicted for murdering his brother and entire family. The trial court had convicted Singh in lieu of murdering six persons including his wife, four children and brother. The murder was commissioned by the process of slitting their necks. The sources have duly reported that the murder was commissioned due to certain property disputes that had taken place between the brothers and it is significant to note that the age of the children has been reported below five years. All the children were below the age of five. The motive behind the murder was some property dispute between the brothers.
The court had referred to the following case laws in lieu of granting death penalty:
(iv) Dhan Raj alias Dhand v. State of Haryana, (2014) 6 SCC 745.
(v) Sahadevan& Another v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2012) 6 SCC 403.
(vi) State of Rajasthan v. Talevar& Another, (2011) 11 SCC 666.
(vii) Anter Singh v. State of Rajasthan, (2004) 10 SCC 657.
(viii) Brajendra Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2012) 4 SCC 28
The court has duly mentioned that-
“There is no doubt that it is not a case of direct evidence but the conviction of the accused is founded
on circumstantial evidence. It is a settled principle of law that the prosecution has to satisfy certain conditions before a conviction based on circumstantial evidence can be sustained. The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established and should also be consistent with only one hypothesis, i.e. the guilt of the accused. The circumstances should be conclusiveand proved by the prosecution. There must be a chain of events so complete so as not to leave any substantial doubt in the mind of the Court. Irresistibly, the evidence should lead to the conclusion inconsistent with the innocence of the accused and the only possibility that the accused has committed the crime. To put it simply, the circumstances forming the chain of events should be proved and they should cumulatively point towards the guilt of the accused alone. In such circumstances, the inference of guilt can be justified only when all the incriminating facts and circumstances are found to be incompatible with the innocence of the accused or the guilt of any other person.”
86540
103860
630
114
59824